Fiji

Baroness Andrews: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group has made any recent decisions to re-admit Fiji to the Councils of the Commonwealth; and, if so, what are the implications for the policy of the Government.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group discussed developments in Fiji at its meeting in London on 20 December. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State represented the United Kingdom. The group welcomed the holding of broadly free and fair elections in Fiji in August and September 2001. In recognition of this and the fact that the Fiji Government were now addressing the current uncertainty over their own constitutionality in a responsible manner, the group decided that the conditions were now right to readmit Fiji to the councils of the Commonwealth. However, in view of the remaining uncertainty over the government's constitutionality, the group also decided that Fiji should remain on its agenda and that the Secretary General's Special Envoy, Justice Pius Langa of South Africa, should remain engaged.
	In view of this, we decided on 20 December to lift the targeted package of measures that the then Minister of State, my honourable friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr Battle) announced on 21 July 2000. We will once again consider applications for funding for small projects from the Fiji Government in the areas of good governance, human rights, conflict prevention and the environment. We have also ended our blanket ban on joint military exercises and visits to Fiji by Royal Navy ships. Possible co-operation in this area will be considered on a case-by-case basis. And in keeping with national and EU criteria, we will continue not to issue export licences for military or security equipment where there is a clear risk that it will be used for internal repression. We will not hesitate to reimpose these measures, and even consider extending their scope, in the event that the Government of Fiji fail to meet their constitutional obligations to all of Fiji's citizens.

ECGD Annual Report

Lord Rea: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to publish the Export Credits Guarantee Department's annual report and resource accounts for 2000–01.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Export Credits Guarantee Department's (ECGD's) annual report and resource accounts for 2000–01 were laid before the House this morning. I am pleased to say that they demonstrate once more that British capital goods exporters and investors have been successful in winning valuable overseas orders with government insurance and guarantee support worth £5.6 billion. Furthermore, they show that ECGD is in a good financial position from which to continue supporting further business while protecting the interests of the taxpayer in what is a difficult period for the global economy.

Forestry

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they plan to review the options for further decentralising forestry policy and management, in the light of continuing experience of devolution.

Lord Whitty: When my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Commons (Mr Elliot Morley) announced the completion of the first stage of the review of the Forest Enterprise executive agency on 10 May 2001 (HC Deb col. 301W), he said that we intended to review the options for further decentralisation of forestry policy and management. The Scottish and Welsh forestry Ministers and I have decided that the review will start shortly and report to us in the spring. It will consider the current administrative arrangements for delivering sustainable forestry policies in England, Scotland and Wales and the UK's international forestry commitments, including options for further devolution of these arrangements. The review will be undertaken by officials from the Forestry Commission, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will also be involved in the review. Views will be sought from interested parties during the course of the review.

State Veterinary Service

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current structure of the State Veterinary Service; whether this is any different from that which pertained in January 2001; and whether they have any plans for further changes.

Lord Whitty: In January 2001 the State Veterinary Service (SVS) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food comprised a Veterinary Policy Unit together with the SVS Field Service. Both were under the command of the Chief Veterinary Officer. The Veterinary Policy Unit, located at Page Street Headquarters in London and with outstationed wildlife units in the West Country, liaised with HQ units in Edinburgh and Cardiff. The SVS Field Service comprised HQ in Page Street, London and a network of five regional and 23 divisional animal health offices throughout Great Britain. The SVS became part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) with the creation of Defra in June 2001. In July 2001 the National Scrapie Administrative Centre was launched at Worcester as part of the SVS Field Service.
	As from 3 December 2001, the Chief Veterinary Officer, as Director General of Animal Health and Welfare, has taken command of the Veterinary Policy Unit (now known as the Veterinary Directorate), together with the Animal Health Group and the TSE Directorate. The SVS Field Service has transferred to the command of the Director General of Operations and Service Delivery. The structure of the SVS Field Service is currently the same as in July 2001 but a new animal health divisional office is being created at Newcastle. This will bring the total number of animal health divisions to 24.

Museums' Long-term Loan of Exhibits

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Blackstone on 19 December (WA 68), what criteria they will apply to determine whether value for money has been properly assessed with regard to novel proposals by a museum or gallery to lend exhibits on a long-term basis in exchange for payment.

Baroness Blackstone: To determine whether value for money has been assessed properly a cost-benefit analysis will be applied where the cost and risks of the proposal will be considered against the perceived benefits. The analysis will be carried out in accordance with the guidance that the Treasury has issued for departments to follow.
	Royal Parks Agency: Performance Targets

Museums' Long-term Loan of Exhibits

Baroness Turner of Camden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What performance targets were set for the Royal Parks Agency for 2001–02.

Baroness Blackstone: The following performance targets were set for the Royal Parks Agency for 2000–01:
	Financial and efficiency: to increase income by 10 per cent from the 2000–01 level, from all sources except recharges and VAT refunds; stay within the revised running costs allocation; seek to bring the hourly costs of a Royal Parks police constable on duty in line with the recommendation in the Speed report.
	Visitor satisfaction: achieve an overall quality rating of 89 per cent from visitors to the parks—the minimum rating for any one park should be no lower than 85 per cent, compared with 83 per cent in 2000–01.
	Fabric: achieve an average rating from visitors of at least 89 per cent on cleanliness in the parks—the minimum rating for a park should be no lower than 85 per cent; maintain an average score of 89 per cent for soft landscape presentation, compared with a score of 88 per cent in 2000–01—the minimum score for a park should be no lower than 85 per cent, compared to 82 per cent in 2000–01; re-appraise maintenance priorities and set annual targets and meaningful indicators for reducing the backlog of works and maintenance.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they requested an internal review of the effectiveness and organisational structure of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and whether they consider that the current review of the commission carried out by the commission itself can be independent; and
	Which groups the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is consulting with respect to its internal review; how those groups have been selected; whether they consider that six days' notice for such consultation is adequate; and whether they think that it would be appropriate for Members of Parliament and Peers to be consulted.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Section 69(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on ways in which its effectiveness could be improved. There was no requirement for these recommendations to be based on an independent review. The Government intend to publish their draft response for consultation early next year and at that stage will be keen to hear the views of, among others, Members of Parliament and Peers on what is proposed.
	Separately from this, the commission applied, as part of its recent in-year bid for an increase in funding, for support for an independent evaluation of, among other things, its internal organisational structure. The Government welcomed this and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agreed to make funding available subject to certain conditions, including that the proposed review be split into three strands (covering the commission's strategic planning, its internal organisation structure and its communications strategy), to enable each element to be analysed by experts in the relevant field.
	Whether to accept this and the way in which the reviewer conducts the evaluation, including its timescale, is a matter for the commission and the reviewer concerned. The chief commissioner has been asked to reply direct to the noble Lord on this point. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 10 December (WA 177) concerning the police escort for the President of the Republic of Ireland on a recent visit to Belfast removing their remembrance poppies, what function was involved, organised by whom, and whether anyone asked for the removal of the poppies, and, if so, who and why.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The event in question was a GAA function on the evening of 9 November 2001. The organisers of the function, with the interests of the police guard in mind, suggested that poppies might be removed. With the security of the principal and that of the escorts being paramount, the officer in charge made an operational judgment in response to the suggestion.

Senior Civil Service Pay

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the special report and recommendations of the review body on senior Civil Service pay.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: As part of the long-term programme of reform for the Civil Service, the Senior Salaries Review Body was asked in April 2001 to provide an independent assessment of the appropriate pay rates as a basis for the new senior Civil Service pay system coming into effect in April 2002. The aims of the new pay system are to enable the Civil Service to compete more effectively to recruit and retain top managers; and to reward sustained performance and the delivery of results.
	The Government accept the review body's recommendations for the minima and maxima of the new ranges. The target rates recommended will also be incorporated in the new system for the best performers.
	Copies of the SSRB special report, along with a summary of the new SCS pay system, are in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and the members of the review body for their work.